Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Emergency Alerts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council delays siren expansion decision after vendor failed to meet 70 dB assurance
Summary
Staff told the council HQE's three installed sirens did not achieve the contract guarantee of 70 dB at every residence; staff proposed three options and recommended paying equipment costs to permit expansion planning. Residents and some councilors urged cutting losses; council tabled the decision to Feb. 9 to gather costs, legal analysis and testing results.
City staff briefed the council on the city's outdoor emergency warning system and a contractual dispute with vendor HQE. Staff said HQE installed three siren poles in September 2024 but after testing ‘‘the sound propagation did not meet the contractually obligated 70 dB’’ at each residence, and HQE later advised it could not assure 70 dB at every home because of numerous variables.
Staff presented three options for council consideration: (1) the city cover equipment costs for any agreed expansion locations so planning can proceed; (2) issue a formal notice of nonperformance for failure to meet the 70‑dB assurance; or (3) fund equipment costs but accept credits or offsets (for example, maintenance or service) in exchange. Staff recommended option 1 to allow planning for expansion and to continue the project while staff returns later with site‑selection and comparative pricing for pole heights. Staff said the remaining contract balance was $13,050.
Council members and the city attorney discussed the legal path: issuing a notice of nonperformance could lead toward litigation, but the city attorney said the parties might still negotiate. Several councilmembers expressed concern about committing city funds without detailed equipment costs and suggestions for offsets. Multiple residents urged different approaches: Mary Martha Bernadette said, ‘‘Can we test the safe network first?’’ and Don Swanson urged the city to ‘‘cut your losses’’ and favor option 2.
After public comment and extended council discussion — including concerns about siting poles in Chesterfield and whether alternative technologies (safe‑network gateways and in‑home units) should be tested first — the council voted to table the item to a date certain (Feb. 9, 2026). Council instructed staff to return with: updated equipment costs for the most advanced candidate sites (Portuguese Bend and Upper Blackwater), an estimate for tall vs. short poles, a legal memo on the risks/benefits of issuing a formal notice of nonperformance, and any HQE proposals for credits/offsets or firm schedules for delivery of in‑home 'safe' units.
Next steps: staff will collect vendor cost estimates, a city attorney memorandum on contractual options and any safe‑network testing results, and return to council at the scheduled February meeting for further direction.
